Alan Turing was fascinated with morphogenesis, and wrote an article by the title "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis". He modeled cell growth as a reaction-diffusion systems, now known as Turing Patterns. And he was firmly against and intended to defeat the religious claptrap pseudoscience we now call "Intelligent Design".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_Basis_of_Morphoge...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction%E2%80%93diffusion_sys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_pattern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

https://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/turing...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1701864.Morphogenesis

I typed in the preface to "Morphogenesis: Collected Works of A.M. Turing", and scanned the drawing inside the front cover by Alan Turing's mother of her son watching the daisies grow:

https://imgur.com/AX6Bg9q

http://donhopkins.com/home/archive/Turing/Morphogenesis.txt

If for some irrational reason you choose to believe in the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design, then you might not like to hear what Turing thought about that, which P. T. Saunders mentions in the foreword to Turing's collected works, citing what Hodges wrote about and quoted Robin Gandy saying in his "excellent biography":

For Turing, however, the fundamental problem of biology had always been to account for pattern and form, and the dramatic progress that was being made at that time in genetics did not alter his view. And because he believed that the solution was to be found in physics and chemistry it was to these subjects and the sort of mathematics that could be applied to them that he turned. In my view, he was right, but even someone who disagrees must be impressed by the way in which he went directly to what he saw as the most important problem and set out to attack it with the tools that he judged appropriate to the task, rather than those which were easiest to hand or which others were already using. What is more, he understood the full significance of the problem in a way that many biologists did not and still do not. We can see this in the joint manuscript with Wardlaw which is included in this volume, but it is clear just from the comment he made to Robin Gandy (Hodges 1983, p. 431) that his new ideas were "intended to defeat the argument from design".

This single remark sums up one of the most crucial issues in contemporary
biology. The argument from design was originally put forward as a scientific
proof of the existence of God. The best known statement of it is William
Paley's (1802) famous metaphor of a watchmaker. If we see a stone on some
waste ground we do not wonder about it. If, on the other hand, we were to
find a watch, with all its many parts combining so beautifully to achieve
its purpose of keeping accurate time, we would be bound to infer that it had
been designed and constructed by an intelligent being. Similarly, so the
argument runs, when we look at an organism, and above all at a human being,
how can we not believe that there must be an intelligent Creator?

Turing was not, of course, trying to refute Paley; that has been done almost
a century earlier by Charles Darwin. But the argument from design had
survived, and was, and indeed remains, still a potent force in biology. For
the essence of Darwin's theory is that organisms are created by natural
selection out of random variations. Almost any small variation can occur;
whether it persists and so features in evolution depends on whether it is
selected. Consequently we explain how a certain feature has evolved by
saying what advantage it gives to the organism, i.e. what purpose it serves,
just as if we were explaining why the Creator has designed the organism in
that way. Natural selection thus takes over the role of the Creator, and
becomes "The Blind Watchmaker" (Dawkins 1986).